LDCad 1.4b (win+linux)

[Philippe Hurbain]

While reading basic editing documentation, a few things came up...

- I noticed a little glitch: after saving a new model, top right screen area is properly updated with file name, but LDCad main window title still says "[New file]"
- In move mode, what about pair of shortcut keys to move in direction perpendicular to editing plane? I thought to PgUp/PgDn but they are already used for step. Maybe ctrl+arrows? Now I understand that this is not only orthogonal to the editing plane but also to LDCad philosophy...

- Not related, but I found a subtle connectivity bug: the small technic panel connects to axle 2 with a 1 ldu offset, only at one end of the axle... See attached file.
- And another: Bionicle tooth 41669 snaps on axles with a 2 ldu offset.

[Roland Melkert]

Thanks Philo,

I've applied all your changes and also added a short GUI template section to keep you busy

[Roland Melkert]

I've finished the technical documentation (for now) by adding info about:

donor and template files

LDCad meta lines

shadow library

The meta information includes all meta I've 'invented' for LDCad specific things over the years.

This includes the part snapping format used in the shadow library so if anyone wants to take a go on adding snap information to parts let me know

[Philippe Hurbain]

OK, I bit the bullet and tried to make/modify a few (attached).
- Creation of connectivity for 30374 Bar 4L Light Sabre Blade, 10050 Minifig Sword Uruk-Hai and 10053 Minifig Sword Small with Curved Blade (Bars with free ends, one end blocked, 2 ends blocked)
- Added top stud connectivity to 3820 minifig hand and 92244s01.dat Friends arm subpart
- Replaced inherited connectivity to 41669 Technic Tooth 1 x 3 with Axlehole (offset of axle hole primitive caused a 2 ldu offset of part when placed with a coarse grid, as reported here)
- Corrected axle connectivity of 11947 Technic Panel Fairing Smooth #22. Axle is blocked by a small ridge in the part, so "extension of axle" present in previous connectivity file was wrong. Removing it also cured the offset problem also mentionned here though I don't understand why it caused this problem.
- Created connectivity for unofficiel 4429 Figure Flask with Handle (stud tubes on bottom, tilted bars of handle).

Things that proved a bit harder than I initially expected:
- Restarting LDCad to be able to test a new definition is a bit painful. Maybe a "clear cache" option to force reload? (useless of course if reload time would be almost as long as restarting completely)
- I initially expected to be able to derive things more or less directly from LDraw part source, but connectivity cylinder extend at the opposite of LDraw cylinder, and orientation matrix needs to be normalized, both issues making things more difficult (especially the first one, annoying for a "directionnally challenged" guy like me - What about giving the possibility to specify a negative lenth to compensate?

[Roland Melkert]

Thanks I'll add them to the default csl.

did notice the minifig hand (3820) stud being a bit off though , it should be:

Code:

0 !LDCAD SNAP_CYL [ID=studC] [gender=M] [caps=one] [secs=R 6 7.35] [pos=0 -0.0005 -9.6816] [ori=1 0 0 0 0.9681 -0.2504 0 0.2504 0.9681]

Things that proved a bit harder than I initially expected:
- Restarting LDCad to be able to test a new definition is a bit painful. Maybe a "clear cache" option to force reload? (useless of course if reload time would be almost as long as restarting completely)

Yes, I usually work in batches minimizing the need to restart, but with the more complicated parts now left it becomes a problem. This is the main reason I'm working on file reloading when changes are detected for LDraw files (and probably most of the other files like part bin groups etc).

- I initially expected to be able to derive things more or less directly from LDraw part source, but connectivity cylinder extend at the opposite of LDraw cylinder, and orientation matrix needs to be normalized, both issues making things more difficult (especially the first one, annoying for a "directionnally challenged" guy like me - What about giving the possibility to specify a negative lenth to compensate?

I haven't had to do much normalizing so far but with the more complicated parts left without info this too becomes a time bottleneck. For this reason 1.5 will be able to edit the snap info inside the editor itself so you can use the normal editing tools and some new ones (like normalize) and more importantly see what you are doing .

Normalizing the matrix isn't too hard though just tread the 9 ori numbers like 3 vectors and normalize those.

[Roland Melkert]

Sorry I seem to have missed this post.

I could assign a key to moving along the editing plane dead axis, problem is there are indeed not many logical keys left. It could be solved by the planned (prob 1.6) key reassignment feature as you could then assign it to anything you want while being 'unbound' by default.

I'll also check if there's something else (bug like) at play concerning those offsets I seem to remember fixing a similar issue a while back but I don't know if this was in the 1.5 or earlier source.

Thanks for reporting.

[Owen Dive]

Given the choice between limiting the input and changing to 128-bit precision, I would suggest limiting the input. If you change to 128-bit precision you're not fixing the problem, just moving it - I could still put in an angle to a bajillion decimal places and cause an overflow. Besides, who needs to specify an angle to that level of precision anyway? Unless I got my math wrong, a change in the 10th decimal place of an angle will result in a displacement of less than 0.01LDU on an arm of half a kilometer.

Sorry if this reply is too late and you've already written the code - not sure why it didn't occur to me on any of my previous readings of this thread!

[Philippe Hurbain]

An attempt for adding connectivity to 9V train tracks... Bottom tubes connectivity of switch points not implemented.
I used oversized connectivity volumes to help snapping from a distance. Perhaps even not oversized enough!

[Roland Melkert]

An attempt for adding connectivity to 9V train tracks... Bottom tubes connectivity of switch points not implemented. I used oversized connectivity volumes to help snapping from a distance. Perhaps even not oversized enough!

Minor bug: 2865s03.dat anti stud info uses a swapped x/z grid.

As for the over sized bounding box. LDCad does bb intersection tests on those to find the closest so it might help if you use a cylinder bounding instead of a box.

But like you already figured it won't snap if its too far away even if its the only thing. This is mainly to limit the number of tests (preventing to test e.g. whole datsvile while adding a single brick). Personally I also like it to fallback to grid placement when its out of reach in order to minimize having to turn snapping on and off while building second structures etc. I could add an option to change this behavior though.

Anyway having very large bounding boxes isn't 'misuse' as its the goal of the bounding property. So you could even use a cylinder with a radius of half the length of the rail . Also the male and female info doesn't need to have the same dimensions ether just the same (rest) orientation.

1.5 introduces the shape property for SNAP_GEN meta's which will need to be the 'tight' bounding box and can optionally be used for matching, it will default to 'not used' though.

Again thanks for the tests/reports Philo.

[Philippe Hurbain]

Thanks for your comments about switch points , I'll have a closer look when I am back home (travelling now...)
Just found a little issue: If you create a path flex part big enough (eg. my VEX track part), bounding box is large enough to prevent reaching the size handles when in 2D mode (you move the whole control point instead). And (an old one but I think I never told you), the size of the control point thing is imho too small and too thin, often quite difficult to select it...

[Roland Melkert]

Just found a little issue: If you create a path flex part big enough (eg. my VEX track part), bounding box is large enough to prevent reaching the size handles when in 2D mode (you move the whole control point instead). And (an old one but I think I never told you), the size of the control point thing is imho too small and too thin, often quite difficult to select it...

Yes there are some known issues while working with (very) large (flexible) parts.

Maybe I should scale the control points etc like the editing pin does. Same goes for the minimal distance of the control point it probably should be base upon the segment length or something.

I'll put it on my Beta 2 todo list

[Willy Tschager]

Could you please add the word "duplicate" somewhere in INS - "Add a new part using the working part or clone the current selection if any".

Thanks, w.

[Roland Melkert]

Could you please add the word "duplicate" somewhere in INS - "Add a new part using the working part or clone the current selection if any".

Done, you are right most people will probably search for 'duplicate' instead of 'clone' when trying to find that specific function

[Willy Tschager]

I don't know if this has already been asked as I was too lasy to read through this endless thread but I'd like to ask for the following features:

* Possibility to lock a part in place and also from the possibility to select it by LMB-clicking, say only a CTRL+LMB would unlock it.
* Additional shortcut for INS (in this case CTLR+D) to ease shift from MLCad to LDCad
* Shortcut for rotation in Move mode (a) without the need to switch to Rotation mode
* Browsing through the part bin by clicking on the empty space above/below the slider so that I don't have the need to actually grap the slider and move it.
* An autosave function 'cos...

* Clicking "Clear" in the "Color bin -> Favorites" crashed the prog and my lovely model vanished into thin air :-(. Furthermore "Add current" nor "Remove current" did work - or at least didn't what I supposed them to do.

w.

[Roland Melkert]

Possibility to lock a part in place and also from the possibility to select it by LMB-clicking, say only a CTRL+LMB would unlock it.

I like this idea a lot I'll try to implement it in one of the 1.5 beta's.

Additional shortcut for INS (in this case CTLR+D) to ease shift from MLCad to LDCad

Configurable hotkeys is pending when that's in place I could setup predefined sets.

Shortcut for rotation in Move mode (a) without the need to switch to Rotation mode

ctrl+r will bring up de rotation dialog no matter the mode, just 'r' and 'm' switches the pin to rotate/move. Alternative could be to split the view as each view has its own pin mode etc.

Browsing through the part bin by clicking on the empty space above/below the slider so that I don't have the need to actually grap the slider and move it.

This has been asked (by email) and is on my todo list. Alternative for now might be using the pageup/down keys.

An autosave function 'cos..
* Clicking "Clear" in the "Color bin -> Favorites" crashed the prog and my lovely model vanished into thin air :-(. Furthermore "Add current" nor "Remove current" did work - or at least didn't what I supposed them to do.

I'm sorry, I've found the cause (pretty stupid one too) and corrected it in my 1.5 source. I'll add auto save to my planned features list (alongside with 'bak' files).

edit: forgot about the add favorites: that will add them to the favorites group you can navigate to in the part bin window.

Thanks for your feedback Willy

[Willy Tschager]

Shortcut for rotation in Move mode (a) without the need to switch to Rotation mode

ctrl+r will bring up de rotation dialog no matter the mode, just 'r' and 'm' switches the pin to rotate/move. Alternative could be to split the view as each view has its own pin mode etc.

Just to clarify what I'm looking for. Adding parts to the top view I'd like to have a shortcut which quickly rotates a part clockwise while I'm in Move mode. So, while I move parts around either with the mouse or the arrow keys, I'm able to rotate it without the need to painstakingly point at the corners of the bounding box to rotate it with the mouse. Also adding a 90 degree rotation step would help enormously.

In addition, I couldn't find an indication in the status bar or somewhere in which mode (either Move (m) or Rotation ®) I'm in.

w.

[Willy Tschager]

* I'd like to have a toolbar with the usual Front, Back, Top, 3D, ... buttons
* I'd like to have a toolbar to shortcut the split views:


  layout.png (Size: 3.26 KB / Downloads: 13)

Thanks, w.

[Roland Melkert]

* I'd like to have a toolbar with the usual Front, Back, Top, 3D, ... buttons
* I'd like to have a toolbar to shortcut the split views:

[attachment=1566]

Currently I'm working on changes to the windowing system for 1.5, in 1.6 I'm hoping to improve the tool bar. In the meantime: you can place the front/back etc items from the view menu in the toolbar but you have to supply custom icons to make sense of them.

Just to clarify what I'm looking for. Adding parts to the top view I'd like to have a shortcut which quickly rotates a part clockwise while I'm in Move mode. So, while I move parts around either with the mouse or the arrow keys, I'm able to rotate it without the need to painstakingly point at the corners of the bounding box to rotate it with the mouse. Also adding a 90 degree rotation step would help enormously.

You can add a 90 deg rotation step to the grid. I'll see if I can find some logical way to make both rotation and move possible at the same time in the 2D windows.

In addition, I couldn't find an indication in the status bar or somewhere in which mode (either Move (m) or Rotation ®) I'm in.

You are right about this, never really realized it myself

PS, I decided to add ctrl+d to 1.5 as I realized it has a different meaning then the current ins key when working with a single selected item.

[Philippe Hurbain]

I recently generated a lot of RJ cables with LDCad and noticed that twisted cables didn't always looked nice. So I made a little experiment to see what happened.
   
From top to bottom:

• Folded cable, no twist. The random color shows the nice refinement of segment length
  
• Straight cable - perfect of course
  
• 180° twisted cable. Looks completely degenerated. Probably some singularity in calculations
  
• 180° twisted cable with one end slightly raised. Unaligned end avoids singularity but twist is concentrated in ends segment instead of beeing evenly spread.
  
• Adding a 90° rotated control point in the middle gives a much better look, but there is no refinement of segment size.
  
• Same thing, but middle CP is offset to cause refinement. Looks even better...
  
• When limiting the twist to 165°, there is no longer singularity but the low number of segments makes it look rather coarse.
  

I remember Kevin Clague telling me that he had a hard time with torsion when he wrote LSynth...

[Roland Melkert]

I recently generated a lot of RJ cables with LDCad and noticed that twisted cables didn't always looked nice. So I made a little experiment to see what happened.

The problem comes from rotation interpolation like you noticed it goes away when you limit the rotation difference between two control points to <180 degree. Other wise it will interpolate the other way around and or bumps into (protected) division by zero problems.

As for the rough segments you can fix that by decreasing the skin basesize (e.g. 100% instead of 400%) The default 400% translates into a minimal of 4ldu segment length which might be to big for short and or very twisted things.

If the twists are very tight it might also help to use a higher resolution donor file or fallback to astatic (LSYNTH like) placement configuration as things might not be worth the file size explosion vs quality win.

I remember Kevin Clague telling me that he had a hard time with torsion when he wrote LSynth...

I know what he mean I've had some headbanging moments my self

[Roland Melkert]

O wait I noticed I got the scale wrong from your pictures, those 180 twists are using way more the 4ldu length segments.

It seems the segments are merged while they shouldn't, this because it merges based on the path y direction angle (0 deg) and does not take into account the roll difference

Thanks for noticing this Philo I'll make some improvements in one of the 1.5 versions.

In the mean time you can just disable merge by setting the skin's max merge to '1', like in the attached mpd

[Philippe Hurbain]

OK, I get it better now. Nonetheless I tried to reduce max merge to 1 on the 165° twisted cable, the torsion remains concentrated on the middle of the cable. Somewhat strange, the cable with middle CP (2x90°) looks more evenly twisted.

[Willy Tschager]

I love the "Select > Same part" and color as well as the "Select > Current step" feature and would like to know if there is a some sort of information available telling you how many parts/colors are in the selection?

Furthermore I'd like to know if there is a way to "hide" the steps? It would help making adjustments to bricks in an earlier step in reference to, say the current or number 10.

w.

[Roland Melkert]

Currently there is no direct way to hide steps, the current implementation basically uses 'hide if >curStep'.

But you can use the select everything in the current step (from a zero selection as all add functions add to to the existing selection). And then hide things using the normal part hiding ('h') feature. If you do that for all unwanted steps you end up with only the parts in the wanted steps.

I do have some additional stepping control planned, so I'll add this to the todo list.

I like your selection information idea, as there is currently only information about parts in the current step etc (using the 'I icon' in the lower right). I could extend that panel to include selection statistics and of create an additional part bin group like the current step info ones.

[Roland Melkert]

If you create a path flex part big enough (eg. my VEX track part), bounding box is large enough to prevent reaching the size handles when in 2D mode (you move the whole control point instead).

Sorry just noticed this part while working through the open bug/minor tweaks of this thread.

The editing rectangle can be hidden using 'p' just like in 3D mode, also the rectangle will be ignored if you're holding down ctrl while clicking the control point.

[Philippe Hurbain]

Good to know (I should have thought of "p" since I use it often in 3D!)

[Roland Melkert]

I've been working on the advanced editing documentation and just finished describing working with pneumatic hoses.

http://www.melkert.net/LDCad/docs/advEdit

More for this page is pending but I was wondering if this is somewhat understandable as I found it quite difficult to explain. So while I continue working on the shocks and grouping text please let me know your thoughts so I can adjust things if needed.

edit: I've also completed/uploaded the shock (spring) chapter.

[Philippe Hurbain]

Seems clear enough for me... but maybe I no longer qualify as a newbie?
I learnt something in pneumatic hose section: the possibility to change control point style from Bezier to circle. Awesome for ropes!
Dynamic/rubber bands: Maybe you should tell what to do when you add circles in the wrong order? Talk about non-planar belts?
Pneumatic hose: Maybe more images at the beginning? perhaps you should number them to be able to refer to them easily in text.
Placement of shock absorber end: discussion of distance measurement and manual movement is interesting, but once the shock is properly oriented you can simply rely on part snapping of end on pin!

Typos, etc...
- over sized -> oversized (beginning of Submodels)
- them self -> themselves (beg. of nested)
- e..g a pneumatic hose -> e.g. a pneumatic hose/ dynamic parts of ether -> dynamic parts of either / when ever you drag -> whenever you drag (beg. of dynamic)
- "To do this you need to switch to the nested editing mode this is needed as we want to manipulate the band it self and not it's general location. " -> "To do this you need to switch to the nested editing mode. This is needed as we want to manipulate the band itself and not its general location. "
- "Thing rectangle can be used to move and rotate the selection much like the editing pin does." -> "This rectangle can be used to move and rotate the selection much like the editing pin does." (pneumatic hose)
-"Just compensate this by changing the grid so the pin points towards you again." Isn't it the viewpoint that we need to change? (shock)

[Roland Melkert]

Thanks for the corrections Philo.

I learnt something in pneumatic hose section: the possibility to change control point style from Bezier to circle. Awesome for ropes!

I added it as I thought not many people would realize bands and hoses use the exact same generator guess I was right I'm also thinking about adding more kinds of points in the future e.g a spool point which automatically loops e.g. a rope n times around a radius to serve as the rope origin in cranes etc.

Dynamic/rubber bands: Maybe you should tell what to do when you add circles in the wrong order? Talk about non-planar belts?

I wanted to keep it simple but still give people the tools to do 99% of their models. Maybe I should add a new page for the advanced advanced stuff, e.g. a 'tips and tricks' page?

Pneumatic hose: Maybe more images at the beginning? perhaps you should number them to be able to refer to them easily in text.

Which step should have a picture, imho I gave all important stages a picture.

Placement of shock absorber end: discussion of distance measurement and manual movement is interesting, but once the shock is properly oriented you can simply rely on part snapping of end on pin!

You are right, did not realize this. I didn't even realize using the bottom pin before working halfway through the selection info method . I will add it.

"Just compensate this by changing the grid so the pin points towards you again." Isn't it the viewpoint that we need to change? (shock)

The problem I tried to explain is e.g. 'top view' of the relative grid is at a different side then were it was in absolute space so to have the (visual) same grid you need to set it to e.g. sides. I'll try rewriting it.

[Milan Vančura]

Nice document, Roland. I was almost perfect 'testman' because I did not work with shock absorbers etc. before. So I followed all your examples and I may confirm they all are well understandable, I was able to learn everything you mention there. And I even learned some new tricks with Nested mode.

The only point the text was unclear to me was near the beginning of 'Nested editing' chapter where you refer to 'Insert into'. That confused me a little. At first, it's called 'Change insertion target' in 1.5Alpha3 (maybe you describe older version. 1.4 ?). And the trick with RMB at session panel was surprising for me so much that it took me some time to find that menu. Another confusing point is that a hot-key for that is 'n', same as for starting the nested mode. I know there cannot be a conflict because 'Change insertion target' makes sense only in the nested mode but that's clear AFTER one understands the problem, not at the learning time

Also, I believe it would be easier to understand if one can simply make a selection and open a menu with all submodels to choose where to put it, comparing to the 'put to current level' workflow. BTW, what's 'level' here and why it is not written as 'submodel'?

The example with shock absorber reminded me another idea: I also found, same as Philippe did, that one can use part snapping instead of setting the absorber length in the menu. And so the generic idea: wouldn't be usable if one can not only move but also rotate the new part or selection in LDCAD with part snapping turned on? Just an idea - I do not have details solved yet (how exactly it should behave, in all which cases this would be useful etc.)

[Roland Melkert]

Nice document, Roland. I was almost perfect 'testman' because I did not work with shock absorbers etc. before. So I followed all your examples and I may confirm they all are well understandable, I was able to learn everything you mention there. And I even learned some new tricks with Nested mode.

Good to know thanks.

The only point the text was unclear to me was near the beginning of 'Nested editing' chapter where you refer to 'Insert into'. That confused me a little. At first, it's called 'Change insertion target' in 1.5Alpha3 (maybe you describe older version. 1.4 ?). And the trick with RMB at session panel was surprising for me so much that it took me some time to find that menu. Another confusing point is that a hot-key for that is 'n', same as for starting the nested mode. I know there cannot be a conflict because 'Change insertion target' makes sense only in the nested mode but that's clear AFTER one understands the problem, not at the learning time

The 'insert into' references to the text on the zoomed session panel, the text you mention is the item in the menu which indeed does the same. But you are right all those different names (submodel, subfile, level, insert into, etc) can be very confusing I'll try to smooth them out in both the documentation and program it self. Only difference you should know about is the one between subfile and submodel though. Basically submodel is a subset of subfile as subfile is the general name of any item inside a mpd (or the single thing in a ldr) which can be a model or part etc.

Also, I believe it would be easier to understand if one can simply make a selection and open a menu with all submodels to choose where to put it, comparing to the 'put to current level' workflow. BTW, what's 'level' here and why it is not written as 'submodel'?

This used to be possible in an earlier version, but I dropped it because it caused some logic and potential rounding problems. The thing is you don't actually select a model you select a branch which leads to a model. This is especially important when a model is used multiple times in the main model. Hope that's somewhat understandable

The example with shock absorber reminded me another idea: I also found, same as Philippe did, that one can use part snapping instead of setting the absorber length in the menu. And so the generic idea: wouldn't be usable if one can not only move but also rotate the new part or selection in LDCAD with part snapping turned on? Just an idea - I do not have details solved yet (how exactly it should behave, in all which cases this would be useful etc.)

You can rotate parts in 90 deg steps (45 if you hold down ctrl) while dragging them using the arrow and pageup/down keys. But to get it perfectly to align in any situation its best to set the relative grid as it forces the exact mufti digit base rotation. Or do you mean automatic alignment through part snapping when e.g. placing a 2x4 brick on a 4x12 plate while the plate and new part are not aligned rotation wise? This is something I have in the pipe line for the next next version together with occupied connection tracking.

[Philippe Hurbain]

I added it as I thought not many people would realize bands and hoses use the exact same generator guess I was right

Also very useful to add natural looking slack to tank treads! The spool control is a very good idea too.

Maybe I should add a new page for the advanced advanced stuff, e.g. a 'tips and tricks' page?

Maybe later yes. So many things to cover...

Which step should have a picture, imho I gave all important stages a picture.

After thinking more, maybe you could simply add a link to your pneumatic hose video.

[Milan Vančura]

The only point the text was unclear to me was near the beginning of 'Nested editing' chapter where you refer to 'Insert into'. That confused me a little. At first, it's called 'Change insertion target'

...

And the trick with RMB at session panel...

Mea culpa. Your documentation says nothing about RMB, it describes clearly how to click (LMB) on "Insert into" text. And there is also a help in LDCad itself, at status line. I simply overlooked all that.

On the other hand, it means your documentation is even better, as I was able to understand it and do all examples at 2am

This also reminds me the font of te status line is so huge that many texts cannot fit there.

Another confusing point is that a hot-key for that is 'n', same as for starting the nested mode.

However, this is still true, even at 4pm Esp. there is no visible indication of the current mode (one must place a mouse cursor over session panel). Now I understand why strange parts appeared in some submodels in my past editing sessions: I thought I entered Nested mode but, instead, I was already there and the same hotkey ('n') silently changed the current target.

But you are right all those different names (submodel, subfile, level, insert into, etc) can be very confusing I'll try to smooth them out in both the documentation and program it self.

Thanks! The simpler the better.

[Milan Vančura]

Or do you mean automatic alignment through part snapping when e.g. placing a 2x4 brick on a 4x12 plate while the plate and new part are not aligned rotation wise? This is something I have in the pipe line for the next next version together with occupied connection tracking.

Yes, something like that. It's a volatile idea only, now. As you have part snapping while you move the part (when using mouse) it might be useful to have the same for a part rotation: rotate the part, rotate, rotate until it snaps.

Thinking about it more now, this feature will be useful alone (for Pythagorean triples or for a part alignment as you described). But if two movements were allowed at the same time it adds even more use cases... Imagine dragging the black end of the shock absorber causing the absorber both rotating and stretching at the same time - following your the mouse cursor - and snapping when it 'meets' the pin. Or another usage: an interactive solving a triangular situation using a similar method - no computing... GUI for two moving parts/groups at once is a challenge, I know. But I believe it's doable and I already have ideas how to make it simple to use.

But stop now. You asked for opinions about your new documentation of this version - not dreams for the next-next one

[Philippe Hurbain]

Speaking of flexible things, do you think it would be possible to extend the mechanism for sheets (canvas, etc...)? Implementing something for ruled surfaces would already be a giant step forward...

[Roland Melkert]

Speaking of flexible things, do you think it would be possible to extend the mechanism for sheets (canvas, etc...)? Implementing something for ruled surfaces would already be a giant step forward...

Programming wise it indeed wouldn't be a big deal as it boils down to a subclass of the generated parts managing stuff.

Also generated stickers/cloths is something on my long term list but I'm not sure how to let users control the shape in an easy way. Only thing I've come up with so far is a grid of linked control points so when you move one it will drag others deforming the mesh. But I'm not sure this would be very handy in reality.

Maybe I'll try something in 1.6 depending on the time and impact of the already planned features for that version (mostly animation/scripting/macro's).

[Roland Melkert]

However, this is still true, even at 4pm Esp. there is no visible indication of the current mode (one must place a mouse cursor over session panel). Now I understand why strange parts appeared in some submodels in my past editing sessions: I thought I entered Nested mode but, instead, I was already there and the same hotkey ('n') silently changed the current target.

I'll add a nag message (dialog with the "don't ask again' option) so you know you are changing the 'insert to' model.

Also some visual indication to show you're in nested mode will be better indeed, maybe some icon behind the filename or something. I'll look into it.

[Jaco van der Molen]

Very impressive stuff there.
I have to try this out some time, though I am not yet very comfortable with the controls in LDCad, because I am so used to MLCad.
I'd probably "cheat" and create most of the model in MLCad and then add hoses and advanced stuff in LDCad.

[Philippe Hurbain]

I'd probably "cheat" and create most of the model in MLCad and then add hoses and advanced stuff in LDCad.

You're going to lose something, LDCad is such a pleasure to use - granted, I never liked MLCad...
And of course the best tool is the one you know well!

[Milan Vančura]

You're going to lose something, LDCad is such a pleasure to use

Exactly. Roland makes a great job here.

In fact, with the Source window (LDCad 1.5 Alpha), I know about only two or three big features missing in LDCad comparing to MLCAD and SR3D Builder. On the other hand, it offers several features more than those two editors. Much more - so the result score is highly positive, from LDCad point of view

For those who are interested these are those three missing features - as I see it:

1. to be able to modify LDraw parts as MLCAD knows - but this is questionable, doesn't it make better sense to use a special tool for that? My opinion is that only a part of it is needed - what's the next point:

2. to be able to edit snapping data comfortably - directly from the editor, visually

and my another (big) wish:

3. to know the basics of physics or model logic - like SR3D Builder knew: to be able to bend a hinge including parts snapped to it, or to be able to turn gears if (and only if!) they are in the correct position for that. This is great feature not only for advanced editing but also for model checking (that everything fits at correct positions).

The unique features of LDCad, are, from my POV:

Organizational ones: it is a living project with very active author, the author promised making LDCad open-source if he cannot spend enough time on it (so the project does not die as both MLCAD and SR3Dbuilder did)

Technical ones: it is multiplatform, it is FAST even on my Thinkpad X61s, it is highly configurable what saves my time a lot, it knows to work with instructions steps very well, it does not mess up the model file even if there are comments from other SW like LPub, it knows to work with belts, strings etc. directly from the editor, it contains a source window for more precise/advanced editation, it knows part snapping, it knows to work with submodels really well - including advanced methods not seen in any other editor...

And I'm sure I forgot something. The short summary is: it's so comfortable and fast it allows me to sketch my ideas and models for (real) LEGO models exhibitions, even on my ways with my small and old laptop. And I can do that fast and comfortably so I can concentrate on my ideas and not on technical limitations of the editor.

Again, Roland makes a great job. Thank you, Roland!

[Roland Melkert]

Thanks for those very kind words Milan,

1. to be able to modify LDraw parts as MLCAD knows - but this is questionable, doesn't it make better sense to use a special tool for that? My opinion is that only a part of it is needed - what's the next point:

I think e.g. LDPartEditor is indeed much better suited for this. I did consider adding some part reviewing tools in the 'view' mode though.

2. to be able to edit snapping data comfortably - directly from the editor, visually

This is actually pending for 1.5 as I need it myself to continue adding info to the official parts more efficiently.

3. to know the basics of physics or model logic - like SR3D Builder knew: to be able to bend a hinge including parts snapped to it, or to be able to turn gears if (and only if!) they are in the correct position for that. This is great feature not only for advanced editing but also for model checking (that everything fits at correct positions).

This is a very complicated feature and forces some restrictions upon the model (probably the reason SR3D doesn't like overlapping parts or submodels). My current goal is to allow this through scripting (plugins) but I don't know if it ever will be possible to write an auto solver that way without forcing restrictions onto the model's construction.

[Roland Melkert]

With all the Windows 10 hype...

I'm curious has someone tried LDCad 1.4b or 1.5 Alpha on it?

I don't really expect problems with it though, but please let me know if there are.

[Owen Dive]

Hi Roland.

I've finally found time to go through the documentation you've written. I have a few suggested corrections, mainly because English is a shit of a language:
* "(the file has been upgraded to mpd the second you added a second model to it)": suggest "the moment you added...", avoiding two different uses of the word second in quick succession.
* "The only downside of nested editing is you loose control over the submodel references themselves": 'loose' is the opposite of tight. You want 'lose', which is the opposite of gain.
* "you would like to work with a submodel as a whole while retaining the 'leave' behavior": 'leaf' is the singular of leaves. The next sentence also contains 'leave' when you mean 'leaf'.
* "All dynamic parts are managed in a dedicated subfile (like submodel's)": No apostrophe for the plural 'submodels'.
* "don't worry about it being to small or to large": "too small or too large".
* "Currently the rubber band exists out a single circular 'guidance' point": suggest "rubber band consists of a..."
* "To do this you need to first select the current circle this however is currently a problem as its center is obstructed by the wheel it self": suggest "current circle. However, this is...". Also, "it self" -> "itself".
* "lets use this situation to introduce the part hiding feature": Capital Lets to start the sentence.
* "Once you done that": "Once you have done that", or "Once you've done that".
* "If you want to insert a circle between two existing ones be sure to select the one you want it to follow is selected when you using 'ins' to add the new one."
* "always be inserted behind the selected one": suggest 'after' instead of 'behind'. The difference is subtle, but I think 'after' reads better.
* "That's it your band is ready to inspect it in its neutral state switch back to normal editing": suggest "That's it! Your band... neutral state. Switch..."
* "While the shock is now in line with the target pin, it doesn't connect to it as it's currently to long": too long
* "lets (also) try this the non snapping way": you want "let's" here - it's a contraction of 'let us'.

Despite the large list, the page is generally easy to read - mostly they're just nitpicks. There are also undoubtedly some things I missed.

Owen.

[Roland Melkert]

Despite the large list, the page is generally easy to read - mostly they're just nitpicks. There are also undoubtedly some things I missed.

Thanks Owen, I'll apply these tweaks when I start working on the groups chapter.